Lonergan says Bulldogs should play in Geelong

[1eyedog]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/02/25/western-bulldogs-should-call-geelong-home/

What are the constraints on this eventuating? Are we locked into the ES deal and can we not even consider this until 2018? I'm not sure... There was some discussion out of Geelong a few years back around a deal that would see the Bulldogs take 100% of the gate and the Cats take the stalls / bars around the ground.

KP is a good viewing ground, accessible to the Western suburbs of Melbourne and the deal will be far better than what we have at ES.

Who's for it?

[bornadog]

Another rubbish article from Dan the negative man.

As for the OP question - no thanks, Geelong is too far for anyone to travel to. The solution is the AFL must buy ES quickly and let us make money there.

[Remi Moses]

Makes sense in the current environment, but it would have to be a pretty good deal.
Maybe one or two games, but it won't happen.

[Greystache]

Hardly breaking news or even an original idea, not surprising for someone as limited as Lonergan. Norf has made Etihad a fortress? They've made the top 4 once in the past 13 years!! He has about as much ability to look beyond the current moment as a teenage BigFooty poster.

The fact that this has been proposed and turned down by the AFL previously didn't rate a mention.

[mighty_west]

Would prefer playing a few games v Port or Freo at Geelong than Darwin or Canberra if we still need to sell a few games.

[1eyedog]

Another rubbish article from Dan the negative man.

As for the OP question - no thanks, Geelong is too far for anyone to travel to. The solution is the AFL must buy ES quickly and let us make money there.

From Werribee, a Bulldog hub, I can get inside KP quicker than I can get inside ES.

[Greystache]

From Werribee, a Bulldog hub, I can get inside KP quicker than I can get inside ES.

From Yarraville (another Bulldog hub) I can get to Etihad in 15 minutes or KP in an hour. That's not even taking into account our supporters who live on the other side of the city.

[1eyedog]

Hardly breaking news or even an original idea, not surprising for someone as limited as Lonergan. Norf has made Etihad a fortress? They've made the top 4 once in the past 13 years!! He has about as much ability to look beyond the current moment as a teenage BigFooty poster.

The fact that this has been proposed and turned down by the AFL previously didn't rate a mention.

North do play well there. Either that or they play crap everywhere else.


From Yarraville (another Bulldog hub) I can get to Etihad in 15 minutes or KP in an hour. That's not even taking into account our supporters who live on the other side of the city.

I guess it comes down to value for money for the club as it always does (e.g. Darwin / Canberra) rather than the logistical convenience for supporters. I must say I didn't mind the Darwin games, the fish are certainly bigger in the top end as opposed to Corio Bay.

[boydogs]

We would if we could. Might be further away for some supporters but the difference in gate takings for small attendances mean 3-4 games a year is a no brainer if we're allowed to do it.

[bornadog]

We would if we could. Might be further away for some supporters but the difference in gate takings for small attendances mean 3-4 games a year is a no brainer if we're allowed to do it.

I would rather play those games at Whitten Oval, if we could..................if we can raise funds for a grandstand in the outer wing.

[boydogs]

I would rather play those games at Whitten Oval, if we could..................if we can raise funds for a grandstand in the outer wing.

This ideal world is getting pretty far removed from reality unfortunately

[Eastdog]

Wouldn't mind selling like mighty_west mentioned 1 or 2 home games there but would not want play more often there. A 3rd stadium needs to be built at the Showgrounds I reckon that is smaller in size say around 30-35K.

[Remi Moses]

Couldn't see that happening as they need govt money.
With recent current events it won't happen.

[Eastdog]

Couldn't see that happening as they need govt money.
With recent current events it won't happen.

Do you think Remi they should have revamped Waverley and improved public transport there and kept it as a 3rd stadium along with Etihad and the MCG. Would of been great for Dogs fans out that way.

[1eyedog]

Do you think Remi they should have revamped Waverley and improved public transport there and kept it as a 3rd stadium along with Etihad and the MCG. Would of been great for Dogs fans out that way.

The best thing about Waverley was that it closed, despicable, down-trodden, cultureless arena that it was - and it took KT from us on a wind-swept night. Salt should be rubbed into the subsoil all over that place so that nothing ever grows there again.

[Eastdog]

The best thing about Waverley was that it closed, despicable, down-trodden, cultureless arena that it was - and it took KT from us on a wind-swept night. Salt should be rubbed into the subsoil all over that place so that nothing ever grows there again.

Supporters also were to far away from the action as well.

[1eyedog]

Supporters also were to far away from the action as well.

The entire playing area was convex. If you were sitting on the fence and watching the play across the other side of the ground all you could see were the players from the waist up. You had absolutely no idea where the ball was at times.

Anyway, I'm up for a few home games at Geelong. I was born there and have family there so it works for me. As long as the takings are well in our favour and we come out the other end with a good return then that is going to help our annual profit margin and hence our sustainability.

Getting a reasonable deal at Etihad is intrinsically connected to the equalisation debate which is itself a slow moving slug and I have absolutely no faith in it given the class stratification that is apparent between AFL teams today. If there are any other positives to come out of playing in Geelong (other than a financial return) it's getting some exposure to the ground so that it becomes familiar to us - growing up there I got sick and tired of getting our pants pulled down there, like most other opposition supporters who go there.

[Remi Moses]

Do you think Remi they should have revamped Waverley and improved public transport there and kept it as a 3rd stadium along with Etihad and the MCG. Would of been great for Dogs fans out that way.

The AfL ( then vfl) had a notion that Waverley was geographically central. They wanted the GF played there!!
It got a bit of love at the end and now, but really it was a poorly designed white elephant.
We have more fans over here and would need something central.

[Remi Moses]

Supporters also were to far away from the action as well.

Added to that was it was the only stadium with a grandstand where you would get wet !
The roof was totally inadequate

[LostDoggy]

I would love to see the Whitten oval transformed into a boutique stadium. North and the Dees could play some games there and it would secure our financial future.

[Eastdog]

The AfL ( then vfl) had a notion that Waverley was geographically central. They wanted the GF played there!!
It got a bit of love at the end and now, but really it was a poorly designed white elephant.
We have more fans over here and would need something central.

Hypothetically though Remi if Waverley was still around and revamped and there was a choice to play 1 or 2 home games elsewhere apart from Etihad what would you choose Simonds Stadium or Waverley Park.

[bulldogtragic]

Hypothetically though Remi if Waverley was still around and revamped and there was a choice to play 1 or 2 home games elsewhere apart from Etihad what would you choose Simonds Stadium or Waverley Park.

Princess Park of whatever mercenary is sponsoring it.

[bornadog]

Hypothetically though Remi if Waverley was still around and revamped and there was a choice to play 1 or 2 home games elsewhere apart from Etihad what would you choose Simonds Stadium or Waverley Park.

Not Waverley

[Remi Moses]

I'd rather play at Geelong than Arctic park

[Happy Days]

Dan "Hot Take" Lonergan. Does he think we should get Fev too?

[Remi Moses]

Like Dan as a rule, but his comment early last year that McCartney was a "good assistant coach" was short sighted and knee jerk in the extreme.
It may prove to be ( highly unlikely) but to make an assessment after one season was silly

[mighty_west]

Like Dan as a rule, but his comment early last year that McCartney was a "good assistant coach" was short sighted and knee jerk in the extreme.
It may prove to be ( highly unlikely) but to make an assessment after one season was silly

He wasn't alone, many supporters said the same thing in his first season.

[Greystache]

He wasn't alone, many supporters said the same thing in his first season.

I have higher expectation of a paid professional than I do from a short sighted and immature fan pounding a keyboard. In Lonergan's case I can't tell the two apart.

As a footy analyst I think he would make a good model.

[Remi Moses]

He wasn't alone, many supporters said the same thing in his first season.

Thank god they don't run the club.
Very short sighted view, I think Dan got chastised in the box for his comments.

[SonofScray]

Geelong is a terrific Stadium, but it wouldn't be something I'd be pleased to see the Club pursue. Reeks of Fitzroy playing out of WO. The aspect I thin people are missing with the "low drawing" games are that very fact, they are low drawing games, add an extra barrier, like a 1hr trip to Sleepy Hollow and it becomes a very low drawing game. A 15k crowd v Port at ES could easily be a 10k crowd at SS which wouldn't be worthwhile, would look horrible. Thats my concern anyway.

[1eyedog]

Geelong is a terrific Stadium, but it wouldn't be something I'd be pleased to see the Club pursue. Reeks of Fitzroy playing out of WO. The aspect I thin people are missing with the "low drawing" games are that very fact, they are low drawing games, add an extra barrier, like a 1hr trip to Sleepy Hollow and it becomes a very low drawing game. A 15k crowd v Port at ES could easily be a 10k crowd at SS which wouldn't be worthwhile, would look horrible. Thats my concern anyway.

So it's just that it's Geelong's home ground?

I don't know about you but if I had the choice of going to Geelong to watch the Bulldogs play or Canberra to watch the Bulldogs play I know what I'd choose, particularly if we got a good return on it. Playing out of Geelong is the same as playing out of Canberra or Darwin if you ask me and at least at Geelong I would get to see my team play. We are definitely not going to win new members playing out of Geelong but did we win a lot of new members playing out of Darwin or Canberra? We need to think of the long term viability of the club in a cut throat industry rather than whether it is a good look or a back look at the ground on match day. To me, 10,000 spectators at SS looks like 15,000 at ES anyway.

The bigger picture is that if we get 5,000 less people to Geelong but we make an extra $200k per game at SS then it's a win for the club. There are a lot of people who like footy in Geelong who are not Geelong supporters and because they are often squeezed out of Geelong games due to pre-paids and members they would go along just to watch an AFL level match. When I lived in South Geelong when Geelong were crap I used to always go over and watch matches all the time.

[w3design]

Just a totally daft idea ! For some who live on Melbourne's extreme western edge ok perhaps. But for the rest of the membership and fans it could be an unmitigated disaster. Docklands is a 270km round trip. Add another round trip to G'long. and back, and although a life long fan, that would render membership pointless. When I go to a match at docklands by train it is full of supporters, many coming from further away than me. How many of them are going to still go if another 2+ hours are added to their trip ? Not many would be my guess.For what they might gain in stadium deal, I am sure they would lose as much or more in paying supporters/members. The AFL needs to either buyout the docklands license asap, or look at a centrally located boutique stadium, no bl**dy G'long, Ballarat or interstate, but something within a 10km radius of the Melb. CBD. where it is equally central for every one.

[boydogs]

For what they might gain in stadium deal, I am sure they would lose as much or more in paying supporters/members.

This is false, we need 25k+ attendance at Docklands to break even with the stadium rental, at Geelong it could be as simple as we keep all the gate takings as pure profit if Geelong gets the bar/food

[w3design]

Not the Bulldog way to just throw in the towel. Let's get the existing deal changed with the help of the AFL. Let's fight, not run away with our tail between our legs, and replace one less than acceptable situation with another that is just as bad, but in a slightly different way.

[jeemak]

I just think it's lovely that we can dream of a life where the constraints of Docklands aren't upon us and we can talk about the difference between drawing a slightly smaller crowd at Kardinia and the members we'd keep or lose if we moved there.

The most pointed thing about the article is what's not included in it. The AFL is not going to let a club that is heavily subsidising the purchase of Docklands move down the road to play home games within an already established football market. The only reason it lets us play games in Darwin, Cairns, Canberra or wherever is because they are not established AFL hunting grounds (aside from Darwin, of course).

I'll be extremely pissed off if we put resources towards lobbying for games at Kardinia. It's futile doing so considering any extra money we would earn in playing games there would have to be offset by the reduction in assistance we receive from the AFL each year.

The assistance we receive from the AFL is given to us due to the inequities in stadium deals and the draw. You take away half that equation and we'll still be singing for our supper, though instead of doing so 10 minutes from our traditional heartland we'll doing it from 40 minutes down a highway.

[1eyedog]

Just a totally daft idea ! For some who live on Melbourne's extreme western edge ok perhaps. But for the rest of the membership and fans it could be an unmitigated disaster. Docklands is a 270km round trip. Add another round trip to G'long. and back, and although a life long fan, that would render membership pointless. When I go to a match at docklands by train it is full of supporters, many coming from further away than me. How many of them are going to still go if another 2+ hours are added to their trip ? Not many would be my guess.For what they might gain in stadium deal, I am sure they would lose as much or more in paying supporters/members. The AFL needs to either buyout the docklands license asap, or look at a centrally located boutique stadium, no bl**dy G'long, Ballarat or interstate, but something within a 10km radius of the Melb. CBD. where it is equally central for every one.

Canberra and Darwin are further.

[w3design]

As Jeemac pointed out those games were AFL promotions, that poor clubs could easily be pressured into. That was not moving our home ground to another city altogether. This would be another Visy Park type move, but not central to our membership or supporter base. Too many negatives, and far too few positives with this proposal. A few extra dollars in one pocket, and lots less in the other. Simply makes no sense at all.

[1eyedog]

I would be very interested to know what we would lose re. AFL handouts if we chose to play two home games in Geelong each season. This aside Geelong have obviously offered up the stadium and we haven't taken it so without knowing I assume we are locked into the ES contract anyway.

[Twodogs]

I would be very interested to know what we would lose re. AFL handouts if we chose to play two home games in Geelong each season. This aside Geelong have obviously offered up the stadium and we haven't taken it so without knowing I assume we are locked into the ES contract anyway.


I would be surprised if we lost anything at all. We are supposed to be improving our bottom line after all and that's why we are doing it.

[jeemak]

Since when are we doing it?

[1eyedog]

I would be surprised if we lost anything at all. We are supposed to be improving our bottom line after all and that's why we are doing it.

We are compensated by the AFL because we have an unfair stadium deal to me infers that if we improve our stadium deal (e.g. play two home games in Geelong) our AFL compensation will suffer -as per Jeemak's post above. If we keep our current compensation and get a boost by playing two home games a year at Geelong then it's a no brainer.

[Eastdog]

I've brought this up somewhere before but maybe we should look at playing 1 or 2 games at the MCG. I remember quite a number of years ago we used to play there quite a bit. I know we are a smaller club with not the biggest supporter base but it's not very good particularly for Victorian club like us to only play once there this coming season.

[bulldogtragic]

I've brought this up somewhere before but maybe we should look at playing 1 or 2 games at the MCG. I remember quite a number of years ago we used to play there quite a bit. I know we are a smaller club with not the biggest supporter base but it's not very good particularly for Victorian club like us to only play once there this coming season.

If you think interstate team games at Etihad have no crowd feeling... I think Sheffield Shield crowds could be higher than say GWS or Freo and I'm not sure how we would make anything from it. No criticism ED, I'm interested in why you think as a club we should be playing more at the MCG?

[Eastdog]

If you think interstate team games at Etihad have no crowd feeling... I think Sheffield Shield crowds could be higher than say GWS or Freo and I'm not sure how we would make anything from it. No criticism ED, I'm interested in why you think as a club we should be playing more at the MCG?

2 main reasons BT

- To get more exposure on that ground which will be important when playing finals
- Possible better stadium deal than at Etihad currently until the AFL buy it out

[bulldogtragic]

2 main reasons BT

- To get more exposure on that ground which will be important when playing finals
- Possible better stadium deal than at Etihad currently until the AFL buy it out

Cool,
But I thought if we had crowds under 25,000 at the MCG we lose money. Isn't Etihad capped?
How many games a year would we need for the required amount of exposure?

[Eastdog]

Cool,
But I thought if we had crowds under 25,000 at the MCG we lose money. Isn't Etihad capped?
How many games a year would we need for the required amount of exposure?

Not sure how it would work but surely we would make more profit there than with our current Etihad deal as it is. I see no reason why we can't at least play 1 home game there.

[jeemak]

Playing a few games a year at the MCG would be great ED, but once again, why would the AFL grant us permission to do it if there's no significant benefit to the AFL?

They need the tenant clubs playing at Docklands at all times as the stadium's rental rights need to be paid by someone. The only reason they tolerate us selling games to Darwin, Cairns, Canberra etc. is because these are considered development markets. It's basically an acknowledgement from the AFL that we're being screwed over at Docklands, and an easily justified way for us to get a few extra dollars in lieu of actually having to stick their necks out and renegotiating with Stadium Management to ensure Docklands tenants earn a fair quid.

I just can't see the MCG option ever being viable for us, irrespective of how well it might prepare us for future years when we climb the ladder again.

[Eastdog]

Playing a few games a year at the MCG would be great ED, but once again, why would the AFL grant us permission to do it if there's no significant benefit to the AFL?

They need the tenant clubs playing at Docklands at all times as the stadium's rental rights need to be paid by someone. The only reason they tolerate us selling games to Darwin, Cairns, Canberra etc. is because these are considered development markets. It's basically an acknowledgement from the AFL that we're being screwed over at Docklands, and an easily justified way for us to get a few extra dollars in lieu of actually having to stick their necks out and renegotiating with Stadium Management to ensure Docklands tenants earn a fair quid.

I just can't see the MCG option ever being viable for us, irrespective of how well it might prepare us for future years when we climb the ladder again.

Even so jeemak surely we can get 1 home game at least there per season. I know St Kilda played a home game there last season so there is no reason why we shouldn't follow suit. Do you reckon when the AFL buy out Etihad that we can then finally get a good deal there which helps our revenue.

[Twodogs]

I wonder if a consortium of clubs could band together and buy Docklands?

[Eastdog]

I wonder if a consortium of clubs could band together and buy Docklands?

Quite possibly.

[westdog54]

Even so jeemak surely we can get 1 home game at least there per season. I know St Kilda played a home game there last season so there is no reason why we shouldn't follow suit.

I disagree.

In the first place StKilda are no more or less stable as a club off-field than we are, so they are hardly an example to be following. Secondly, overheads are still high at the MCG, and withough the safety net of a guaranteed return at Etihad we will more than likely lose money by playing there. Thirdly, you only need look at most of Melbourne's home games to see what a low drawing team playing games at the MCG looks like. It makes for a miserable sight seeing sparsely filled grandstands and it is hardly the image our club wants or needs when our games are broadcast on TV.

I know you mean well and I genuinely believe you love this club, but seriously ED, your obsession with the MCG is blinding you to the realities facing our club.

[bulldogtragic]

Not sure how it would work but surely we would make more profit there than with our current Etihad deal as it is. I see no reason why we can't at least play 1 home game there.

I think Westdog sums up what I was saying Easty. I love your passion, but this particular idea isn't the strongest one.

[Remi Moses]

I wonder if a consortium of clubs could band together and buy Docklands?

Couldn't see it happening ( although ideal)
A few clubs are pretty skint

[Eastdog]

Couldn't see it happening ( although ideal)
A few clubs are pretty skint

Hypothetically if something like that was going to happen how would it be exactly done by the clubs. I would guess each club that comes together would pay an equal share.

[Greystache]

Personally I can't see a financial institution in the world that is going to lend $250 million to a handful of clubs who are borderline insolvent. It's just not realistic.

[bulldogtragic]

Personally I can't see a financial institution in the world that is going to lend $250 million to a handful of clubs who are borderline insolvent. It's just not realistic.

Boo :)

I agree, I think any rogue traders able to facilitate this would be Carlton members.